Are We Trying For Energy Independence or Electoral College Votes?

by D.T. Holt

It seems to me that the gap between the left and the right on energy in general and oil in particular is getting smaller everyday. There is a lot in John’s take on energy independence that I agree with. For example, I agree that the answer is comprehensive. There is no single answer – off shore oil drilling, electric cars, hydrogen cars etc – that solves the problem. The tendency of politicians on both sides of the aisle to oversimplify this issue is at least part of the reason that we have been talking for years about solving our energy problems and our “addiction to oil” without making serious moves towards actually doing it.

I disagree with John’s assertion that those who are opposed to offshore drilling don’t really WANT energy independence. I very much want energy independence however, what I don’t want is an empty solution which includes environmental risks, however minimal, while doing nothing to solve the problem. Most experts put the percentage of the world’s oil produced by the US at around 3%, while we consume around 25% of the oil used on the planet. Simple math tells us that it is impossible for us to survive on US oil alone without an immediate, drastic reduction in our consumption of oil and even that may not be enough.

Some would argue that increasing US oil production in the short term will give us the time to develop alternative fuels for the long term solution. This would be a fine argument if it were possible to make even a small dent in our usage of fuel from foreign countries by drilling more in the US. The fact is that our current infrastructure is not equipped to produce any more oil than we are already producing. According to a report by the US Energy Information Administration, increased access to offshore drilling would not have a significant impact on oil and natural gas prices or production before 2030 and even then would only represent a 7% increase over current production.

The simple truth about our dependence on foreign oil is that the only viable path to total or even partial independence is to end our usage of carbon based fuels. Obviously, this is not something that can happen over night and there is, in fact, no viable solution currently available. John assumes that liberals would be against the idea of fledgling alternative power companies striking it rich by developing new fuel technologies. On the contrary, I think it would be difficult to find anyone who would be opposed to the economic boost that growth in this vital area of development would bring. The potential for large profits and job growth may be one of the best incentives for development of alternative energy and the assumption that the left is opposed to the concept of profit is at best a gross oversimplification of an issue that is probably fodder for another debate.

So why do politicians in general and Republicans in particular continue to treat offshore drilling as a main component in our energy independent future? For the same reason that most politicians, Republican or Democrat, support anything, because they think it will help them win elections. It is a shell game that focuses the attention of the American public on an empty solution which is often far easier than actually trying to solve the problem

I’m guessing that my conservative co-blogger would call this viewpoint cynical and it probably is but, I still maintain that what John McCain WANTS is to be the next president of the United States and I don’t believe that his stance on offshore drilling is offered in the spirit of actually solving a problem. If it was, why wouldn’t he acknowledge that offshore drilling has no short term impact on the problem?

The fact is that the endeavor to solve our “addiction to oil” probably doesn’t play well on either side of the aisle. How many people would vote for a politician who said “While we do not currently have a viable solution to the problem of energy independence, it is of the utmost importance that we work towards finding one.” Voters generally want to hear promises and solutions, no matter how short sighted, instead of nuanced discussion of the problem. Unfortunately, it is often impossible to solve a problem of this nature without a frank discussion of its scope and complexity.

The other common argument for offshore drilling is that it offers short term relief in the much debated “price at the pump.” In his post, John asserts that oil prices “plummeted” this summer when the President called for more offshore drilling. According to the US Energy Information Administration website, the average price of gasoline was $3.65 per gallon the week of September 8, 2008, which is an increase of 90 cents over the price one year ago. While gas prices have fluctuated down from their mid-summer peak of around $4 per gallon, overall they are 32% higher than they were one year ago. The decrease of 35 to 40 cents per gallon over the past month or so can hardly be described as a plummet and its cause is more likely the result of decreased demand as the American people were forced to use less fuel in order to maintain their already overstressed budgets

John talks a lot in his posting about which side in the argument actually wants energy independence and which side is merely posturing for more sinister political gain. I don’t believe that either side is serious about energy independence and the posturing, oversimplification and emphasis on misleading the public with non-solutions will only continue to exacerbate the problem and do nothing to solve it. Until the American people and the politicians who represent them truly treat energy independence as an actual crisis, we will continue to look to the Middle East to feed our addiction to carbon based fuels.

__________________________________________________________________

Be sure to tune in next week when I'll kick off another "Subject To Debate" and in the mean time, let's have some more comments from our readers. This blog isn't just about the opinions of one liberal and one conservative, it's about dialogue.